Appendix 5.1.

C –
Atkins –
Phosphorus removal
– technology review

Wessex Water

September 2018
Appendix 5.1.C – Atkins – Phosphorus removal – technology review Wessex Water

Business plan section Supporting document

Board vision and executive summary

1 Engaging customers

2 Addressing affordability and vulnerability

3 Delivering outcomes for customers

4 Securing long term resilience

5.1 Protecting and enhancing the environment

5.2 Using water efficiently

5.3 Providing excellent drinking water quality

5.4 Minimising sewer flooding

Markets & innovation: 5.5 Bioresources

5
wholesale 5.6 Maintaining our services

5.7 Accommodating growth and new development

5.8 Water resources bid assessment framework

5.9 Water resources RCV allocation

5.10 Bioresources RCV allocation

6 Markets & innovation: open systems & DPC

7 Markets & innovation: retail

8 Securing cost efficiency

9 Aligning risk and return

10 Financeability

11 Accounting for past delivery

12 Securing trust, confidence and assurance

13 Data tables and supporting commentaries

PR19 Business Plan September 2018

Phosphorus removal business
plan
Technology review
Wessex Water
18 May 2018
Notice
This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely as information for
Wessex Water and use in relation to the review of the phosphorus removal programme
Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in
connection with this document and/or its contents.
This document has 11 pages including the cover.

Document history
Origin- Author-
Revision Purpose description ated Checked Reviewed ised Date
Rev 1.0 First issue MK GS TB GS 8/5/18
Rev 2.0 Incorporate WW TB GS RG GS 18/5/18
comments

Client signoff
Client Wessex Water
Project Phosphorus Removal Business Plan Technology Review
Job number

Client signature
/ date

| 1.0 | 08 May 2018

Atkins | wessex water p removal technology review _v2 Page 2 of 11
Table of contents
Chapter Page
Executive summary 4
1. Introduction 5
2. Option selection 5
2.1. Sites with Phosphorous upper permitted limit >1 mg/l 5
2.2. Sites with Phosphorous upper permitted limit = 1 mg/l 6
2.3. Sites with Phosphorous upper permitted limit between 1 mg/l and 0.5 mg/l 6
2.4. Sites with Phosphorous upper permitted limit <= 0.5 mg/l 6
3. Chemical Dosing 7
3.1. Dosing Control 7
3.2. Chemical Storage 8
3.3. Additional Sludge Volume 8
4. Risks 8
4.1. Chemical Selection and Dose Control 8
4.2. Sludge Handling 9
4.3. Selection of Tertiary Filtration 9
4.4. Alkalinity 9
5. Summary observations 10

| 1.0 | 08 May 2018

Atkins | wessex water p removal technology review _v2 Page 3 of 11
Executive summary
Wessex Water has engaged Atkins Ltd to provide a review of its practices on chemical
phosphorous removal schemes contained in the AMP 7 business plan and to compare these to
alternative approaches employed by other wastewater practitioners. The specific scope of the report
was discussed with Wessex Water and it was agreed its overall aim would be a technical review of
the Wessex Water approach against our experience of P removal with other companies. A cost
review of solutions and associated equipment have been specifically excluded from this project. The
objectives were pursued by reviewing Wessex Water’s list of solutions provided and chemical
dosing standard against comparable UK water companies processes, standards and known issues
surrounding the operation and control of chemical dosing systems.

We have reviewed the approach that Wessex Water have adopted to determining the treatment
process and scope of works for the programme of P removal at PR19. We consider that their
treatment process selection flowchart is appropriate and that the processes selected for the various
phosphorus permit limits are in line with industry standards. Given the large number of schemes to
be scoped and costed, the approach that Wessex Water have adopted is an effective way of
estimating the scope of a large programme of work.

We consider that the treatment processes selected have a high certainty of achieving the required
phosphorus limits, in order to achieve the required environmental improvements in the receiving
rivers.

We note that in some cases Wessex Water have the decided to adopt a lower cost approach than
that determined solely by following the process selection flow chart. Examples of where costs could
have higher include: Cerne Abbas STW, Shepton Mallet STW.

We have also identified areas where there are risks to Wessex Water that costs could increase.
These include:-
• A potential need to add alkalinity dosing at STWs with stringent nitrification
standards
• A requirement to improve sludge removal processes due to increases in quantity
and changes in the characteristics of more chemical sludges.
• A high demand for tertiary treatment plant across the UK water industry affecting
lead in times, supply availability and potentially increasing unit costs

Further details of our key observations are listed in section 5.

| 1.0 | 08 May 2018

Atkins | wessex water p removal technology review _v2 Page 4 of 11
1. Introduction
There are 64 Wessex Water (WW) sewage treatment works (STWs) that will have tighter P consent
imposed in the next AMP. Out of these 64, 14 works will be subject to a reduction of their current P
consent.

Wessex Water have requested Atkins to review their current phosphorus removal schemes contained
within their AMP7 business plan. This review compares the currently proposed works and solutions
with the approach used by the wider water industry, with the review highlighting areas where
alternative technologies/approaches may be suitable for implementation along with areas of potential
challenge and mitigation of risk.

Where chemical dosing is already in place to achieve the current P consent, the existing dosing
control method, chemical storage and dosing system reliability have not been assessed within this
review.

2. Option selection
Wessex Water has adopted the following process selection flowchart for implementation within the
AMP7 business plan submission for all works subject to new or tighter phosphorous consent under
the WINEP (3) scheme.

Table 2.1 Wessex Water PR19 Phosphorus Removal Process Selection Flowchart

2.1. Sites with Phosphorous upper permitted limit >1 mg/l

Under WINEP (3) scheme, twenty No. Wessex Water STWs will receive a new phosphorous (P)
upper permitted limit above 1 mg/l. The individual site limits vary between 1.1 mg/l and 4mg/l. For
these higher P consents, single point front-end dosing is the widely used P removal method in the
waste water industry.

| 1.0 | 08 May 2018

Atkins | wessex water p removal technology review _v2 Page 5 of 11
2.2. Sites with Phosphorous upper permitted limit = 1 mg/l
According to the Wessex Water design standard for P removal, where the site serves a population
equivalent (PE) greater than 40,000 the recommended method of P removal is dual-point dosing.
However, in the proposed solution for Holdenhurst (PE - 184,264) and Shepton Mallet (PE- 50,362)
STWs the proposed method of P removal is single-point dosing.

Holdenhurst STW : Single point dosing has been selected here for the potential 1.0 mg/L UWWTD
standard. WW stated that this is due to the fact that the STW is an activated sludge treatment
process with high MLSS loadings on the FSTs. The alternative option of installing secondary dosing
would require the provision of additional final settlement tank capacity to accommodate the
associated increase in solids loading.

Shepton Mallet STW : At this STW WW already have single point dosing installed to meet the
existing 2.0mg/L standard. WW. The STW has a high trade load and the resident population is only
11,020 pe, with associated relatively low average flows. WW stated that their experience of
operating the existing dosing plant has demonstrated that a 1.0mg/L P standard can be reliably and
efficiently achieved using the existing plant.

Although P upper permitted limit of 1 mg/l can be achieved with single point dosing, there is risk of
overdosing chemicals if adequate mixing and flocculation is not provided. Mixing is extremely
important in the application of chemicals to crude sewage. If rapid mixing is not achieved then up to
three times more chemical may be required to achieve optimal cost-effective phosphorus removal.
Ferric salts hydrolyse to insoluble ferric hydroxide precipitants within 1-2 seconds. Ferric hydroxide
will still react with the phosphate but over the course of hours rather than seconds. The use of multi-
point dosing improves the efficiency of the mixing. Some water companies adopt dual point dosing,
taking the view that achieving >90% P-removal in a single stage is uneconomic. It is also found that
some water companies standards specify dual-point dosing for filter works to achieve <=1.5 mg/l P
upper permitted limit.

2.3. Sites with Phosphorous upper permitted limit between 1

mg/l and 0.5 mg/l
To achieve low P upper permitted limits (between 1 and 0.5 mg/l), dual-point dosing is widely used
within the wastewater industry. There are 22 No. Wessex Water sites that will receive low P (0.5 – 1
mg/l) upper permitted limit in AMP7. The industry norm is to provide inline mixing with flocculation
and tertiary treatment for achieving low P upper permitted limits. The proposed solution for Cerne
Abbas STW is 2-point dosing only, with no tertiary treatment, even though its P upper permitted limit
is 0.8 mg/l. According to the Wessex Water option selection flow chart, recommended solution
would be dual– point dosing with cloth filters as tertiary treatment.

2.4. Sites with Phosphorous upper permitted limit <= 0.5 mg/l
There are 7 No. of Wessex Water sites that will receive an ultra-low P upper permitted limit
(<=0.5mg/l). The industry norm to achieve P removal to this level is via 2-point dosing, inline mixing,
flocculation at the secondary dosing point and tertiary treatment. To achieve this tighter P upper
permitted limit without overdosing or breaching residual iron or aluminium upper permitted limit
other water companies have successfully trialled feed forward real-time dosing control systems.
Applying the dose immediately prior to tertiary treatment, this has the effect of mitigating against
upstream alkalinity deficiency which is an unavoidable side-effect caused by increased dosing
ahead of the main biological processes, potentially inhibiting nitrification.

| 1.0 | 08 May 2018

Atkins | wessex water p removal technology review _v2 Page 6 of 11
3. Chemical Dosing
The review of other UK water companies’ practices on chemical precipitation of phosphorous found
that:
• Ferric sulphate is the most commonly used coagulant. Other chemicals that are widely
used are ferric chloride and aluminium sulphate
• Different companies adopt different equations/design, metal: P molar ratio figures for
establishing design doses.
• Pre-precipitation (to PST influent) is the most common dosing configuration with mixing
being achieved by dosing into the top of standing wave downstream of a flow
measurement flume. If such conditions are not available, providing additional mixing
facilities to achieve mixing within 1-2 seconds should be considered in the design to
achieve efficient mixing.
• For RBC sites chemical is dosed directly into the first biozone of the RBC, as the disc
rotation provides adequate mixing.
• Where 2-point dosing is required on trickling filter works, most common configuration is
dosing upstream of primary settlement and into the influent to the distribution system of
the humus settlement tanks. Mixing and flocculation prior to humus tanks are provided
to achieve sufficient mixing and dispersion. For works with ultra-low P upper permitted
limits, mixing and tertiary treatment requirement are considered to achieve enhanced
solids removal, as filter works can release metal ions during variable flow/weather
conditions and seasonal periods such as sloughing.
• Where 2-point dosing is required on ASP works, the most common configurations are
dosing upstream of primary settlement and to the head of the ASP or alternatively
dosing prior to primary settlement and immediately upstream of the final settlement
tanks. Where dosing into final settlement tanks is carried out, mixing, flocculation and
tertiary treatment are generally provided.
• The requirement for tertiary treatment by most water companies is established based
on the P upper permitted limit in force and effluent metal upper permitted limit. Wessex
Water’s standard approach is to trigger the introduction of tertiary filtration in cases
where secondary precipitation is employed and/or where Total Iron upper permitted
limits are ≤4mg/l and suspended solid content is <=25 mg/l.

3.1. Dosing Control

The success of the phosphorous removal process through chemical precipitation is heavily reliant
on the use of appropriate instrumentation and control. An automatically controlled chemical dosing
system is usually provided to meter the output of the dosing pumps. The dosing systems are usually
capable of operating under a selection of different automatic dosing methods. Water companies
operate their chemical dosing systems under different control regimes. Preferences vary and are
commonly site specific. These include:
• Flow proportional
• Pre-programmed diurnal profile
• Fixed rate (mostly used for very small wastewater sites)
• In response to a 4-20mA analogue signal from an external phosphorus monitor, either
feedback or feed forward control.
Wessex Water standards state that site with a PE up to 2000, preferred dosing control method is to
provide a fixed dose and to provide sites with a PE of over 2000 to have flow proportional dose
control applied. For smaller sites a fixed dose control philosophy is often used, as the residual iron
or aluminium upper permitted limits at these sites are less stringent. However, for larger sites fitted
with flow proportional dosing there is significant risk of overdosing of coagulation chemical, during
periods of high flow with a low biological contaminant concentration in the inlet. It may be necessary

| 1.0 | 08 May 2018

Atkins | wessex water p removal technology review _v2 Page 7 of 11
to cap the overall dose rate to prevent this occurring when the site is subject at storm flow
conditions. Reviewing other water companies’ practices on dosing control found that:

• For larger sites with variable inlet P loads, other water companies use measured P load
proportional dosing, using automatic online P monitors and feed forward dose control
systems, instead of flow proportional dosing.
• For smaller to medium size sites with variable inlet P loads, an alternative approach is
to dose based on a predictive diurnal P load profile to avoid overdosing. This approach
requires a period of continuous online crude sewage sampling during dry weather
condition (period of sampling can vary) to derive a reliable P load profile. This profile
should also be checked/revisited periodically to ensure conditions have not changed
significantly. The costs of this regular validation and adjustment sampling should be
included within the business plan submission.

3.2. Chemical Storage

A comparison of various water company standards shows that the minimum chemical storage
volume requirement varies considerably;
• For smaller sites storage ranges from of 45 - 60 days minimum storage assessed at the
average dose rate
• For larger sites this is reduced to a minimum of 10 – 14 days, again calculated at the
average dose rate
When deciding the storage volume, factors such as access to the site, delivery cost bands, capacity
and frequency of tanker delivery should be taken into consideration. Particularly at small sites the
philosophy of a tank sized based on the minimum tanker capacity or the ability to perform a ‘milk
round’ approach to delivery with a larger vehicle will form part of this assessment.

3.3. Additional Sludge Volume

Sludge production can increase significantly due to precipitation of ferric phosphate, ferric hydroxide
and increased solid and BOD settlement due to the effect of adding multivalent metal ions to the
main process flow. A comparison of other water company standards shows that the “factor” use to
calculate amount of chemical sludge production varies. As the type of chemical that Wessex Water
selected for each site is not known, the potential additional sludge volumes or implication on
storage and handling is not assessed at this stage.

4. Risks
4.1. Chemical Selection and Dose Control

Wessex Water hasn’t provided detail information on the type of chemical proposed for each site for
P removal. Both ferric chloride and ferric sulphate are options for the precipitation of phosphate in
activated sludge and trickling filter applications. In the water industry ferric sulphate is the preferred
chemical option because it has a slightly higher pH, thereby reducing material corrosion and H&S
risk.

Aluminium chloride or aluminium sulphate is used if there are problems associated with iron salts
such as the potential formation of colloidal iron or the possibility of iron affecting downstream
processes such as dosing for filamentous control or staining UV system components. If aluminium

| 1.0 | 08 May 2018

Atkins | wessex water p removal technology review _v2 Page 8 of 11
based chemical is selected for P removal, there is risk of breaching tighter aluminium upper permitted
limits imposed due to overdosing.

Due to the application of a nationwide low P upper permitted limit strategy in the AMP7 funding period
and the industry preference for ferric sulphate, there may be high demand, which could lead to higher
unit supply costs as a result. Therefore, there may be benefits from designing the chemical storage
and dosing system to allow use of the alternative chemicals to maintain operational flexibility. In
addition to the cost and availability of chemicals, the impact on alkalinity and need for alkalinity
correction should also be taken into consideration.

For ultra-low P upper permitted limits, jar tests would establish the metal: P molar ratio to fine-tune
chemical dosing. As a basis for sizing flocculation tanks, Wessex Water uses a 15min retention time
calculated at flow to full treatment (FTFT) including return liquors. Alternative approaches have taken
by other water companies sizing flocculation volumes with the addition of upstream inline mixers,
flocculation tank retention time can vary within the range of 5 - 15 mins at FTFT.

4.2. Sludge Handling

As discussed, above dosing metal salts for the removal of phosphorous from wastewater results in a
significant increase in the quantities of sludge produced. It is important to take into account of the
impact of this on the design of new biosolids processing facilities or on the retrofitting of existing ones,
as not only the quantity but also the characteristics of the solids removed are substantially modified.

Pre- precipitation dosing can increase total primary sludge production by 25-50%, therefore, there
may be benefits in fitting auto desludging systems to any downstream settlement tanks. If the existing
de-sludge pumps are assessed as suitable it may still be necessary to adjust the de-sludge timer
settings to regularly remove additional sludge from the process stream.

To summarise, with addition of chemical coagulants for P removal, the suitability of existing de-sludge
pumps to handle chemical dosed sludge, onsite sludge storage and sludge handling capacity typically
need to be assessed. Further to this, because of alterations to sludge composition and quantity
additional sludge transfer, the capacity to handle additional sludge at sludge receiving sites may also
need to be considered along with the sludge handling strategy.

4.3. Selection of Tertiary Filtration

For sites with ultra-low P upper permitted limits, Wessex Water’s preferred tertiary treatment
technologies are automatic cloth filter units or nitrifying sand filters, depending on each respective
site’s AmmN upper permitted limit. As cloth filters are becoming the most popular tertiary treatment
option for P removal schemes within the UK water industry it is anticipated that there will be high
demand for these systems affecting supply availability and lead times.

4.4. Alkalinity

With chemical addition to primary settlement, residual influent alkalinity can be reduced significantly
which can result in nitrification impairment due to low pH. If total nitrogen removal is required, it can
reduce BOD load from primary settlement to levels which could compromise denitrification, requiring
larger quantities of an exogenous carbon source. Therefore crude sewage sampling may be needed,
particularly for sites where liquors from digested sludge processing are returned to head of the works
for treatment.

If pH or alkalinity is found be a problem for any of the sites, corrective measures such as addition of
alkalinity (lime /sodium hydroxide) downstream of point of metal ion dosing will be required. It is
suggest that a cost is included within the AMP7 business plan to cover for additional sampling to
determine the presence of this potential issue. It is also suggested that alkalinity dosing is included
as a cost, as a risk based methodology, and applied within the AMP 7 business plan.

| 1.0 | 08 May 2018

Atkins | wessex water p removal technology review _v2 Page 9 of 11
5. Summary observations
• For works with ultra-low P upper permitted limits (<=0.5 mg/l), other water companies adopt
online P monitoring and feed forward dosing control as flow proportional dosing can result
in chemical overdosing and resultant metal upper permitted limit failures.
• For smaller to medium size sites with variable inlet P loads, an alternative approach is to
dose based on the site specific predictive diurnal P load profile to avoid chemical
overdosing
• If flow proportional dosing is selected, consider limiting dose to mitigate against overdosing
during storm conditions.
• Consider the risk of additional validation and optimisation sampling and whether
appropriate costs have been allowed for this within the AMP7 business plan,
• Alkalinity dosing needs to be considered on a site-by-site and programme level, if it hasn’t
been already, and incorporated into the AMP7 business plan.
• Wessex Water standards for chemical storage requires a minimum of 14 days storage,
however, other water companies consider larger volumes for smaller sites to avoid multiple
smaller deliveries, e.g. minimum storage tank size is limited to the smallest bulk chemical
delivery. There may be longer lead time for smaller deliveries and the potential to put a ‘milk
round’ delivery approach should be investigated.
• Consider the potential lead time for new tertiary treatment process units and its effect on
the delivery programme
• Consider the benefits of providing chemical storage and dosing system that to allow use of
the alternative chemicals to maintain operational flexibility as this is the industry practice.
• Additional sludge production, auto desludging, sludge storage, handling and removal
should be assessed. It is unknow whether Wessex Water has already derived its regional
sludge strategy approach with this additional sludge production due to chemical dosing.
• For works with UV treatment, Iron can interfere with the UV treatment which may affect the
chemicals selected for dosing.
• Carry out jar tests to fine tune chemical dosing particularly for ultra-low P upper permitted
limit works.

| 1.0 | 08 May 2018

Atkins | wessex water p removal technology review _v2 Page 10 of 11
Malka Kaluarachchi
Atkins Limited
Woodcote Grove
Ashley Road
Epsom
KT18 5BW

Tel: +44 (0) 1372754309

© Atkins Limited except where stated otherwise

| 1.0 | 08 May 2018

Atkins | wessex water p removal technology review _v2 Page 11 of 11